About your Search

20130401
20130430
Search Results 0 to 43 of about 44 (some duplicates have been removed)
that happened in the america's cup context. we would have to come back after sequa. we suggest and have gone to the cities planning committee to ask that they be the body it reviews specific infrastructure plans and that body includes d dw the public you utilities commission. we would include mechanisms to make sure we get a fair price from our infrastructure partner. and finall test, test, test, test, test, test >> good afternoon and welcome to the board of supervisors land use and economical development committee. i'm scott weaning i'm the chair. the supervisor david chiu a member of the committee is joining us and thank you to sf g tv for broadcasting this committee. madam clerk any announcements. >> yes, please make sure that your electronic excises are silenced. >> yeah. there will be no board of supervisors on april 30th so may 7. we're joined by david chiu. for members of public there are blue public comment cards at the front of the chamber and please fill one out and please note on the item number so we can organization them. there is an overflow room if you need to go there >>
the sequa determination. >> i think that the sequa determination is incredible powerful so never mind of encouraging dialog a sequa appeal from the largest promotions to the smaurt is considered and i think one of the city agency that has gone through the non-sequa appeals and has issued approvals perhaps i mean - i can imagine that agency saying how can you rule against the sequa agency seeing we've spent a lot of time. you want an objective analysis >> any additional comments? supervisor kim if i can raise one issue. in our discussion before about our election you may have a different prospective. my understanding in reading our election is, in fact, under our legislation the current procedure would remain in place that one, the rec and park commission approvals it there are would be a thirty day window to appeal but in under your legislation the opponent could wait until a building permit was pulled and if there were 3 priltsz pulled would wait under it is employed. it seems like that is something that the facts being what they are we can at least have the same facts at hand
on the land use committee on this legislation. more than a decade ago sequa was enacted. now more than a decade ago we've not had legislative negative declarations under sequa. it's been a choofg and unpredictable process without a clear deadline for filing on appeal. while sometimes large developers can deal with the chaotic situation they have lawyers and small projects and home projects can't. this legislation should have been passes a decade ago. 3 of our predecessors attempted to pass those pursues in statutory form and they were unable to do so. so my legislation is before us and finally to codify pursues. i introduced this legislation almost 6 months ago. after a number of months to do so in a methodal way. we have had 3 round table meetings various smaller meetings are affordable housing and historic preservation. we've had 3 hearings and two hearings at the planning commission and now two at the land use committee. both the historic commission and the planning commission have recommended approval of my legislation. the hearings we've held i've been reprehensible - but to the m
. supervisor kim's legislation will allow multiple sequa appeals to the board of supervisors on the same project even though through has been no meaningful change. and this will allow more appeals amid construction. in addition the legislation continues our current practice of allowing appeals to occur in the middle of a project. we say this in a appeal on supervisor campos appeal resulted. we saw recently that the delores park was appealed to the planning commission after the commission approves that project and someone wants to appeal it it can wait until plans are pulled and at which the construction will have to grind to a halt and it will cost additional money. i think this is not the right process that will continue under supervisor kim's legislation. it will eliminate over the counter permits by requiring that the planning department go there an analysis of smaller plans and when permits from what departments might be neat and then a compilation will be another delay. this abandons the delegation to other departments. this year hundreds of categorical reductions that are done ever
to clarify that the board can abusive the project only after the sequa have been recommendation for the purpose of relating an appeal before the full board. the set set of minutes deal with supervisor campos said which is by and large the eir process has been working just fine and certainly in the context of the cpc a number of sub amendments that really minimize the requirement that the written materials be submitted with the agency to not to file the - that an eir can be filed after certification to allow appeals to be filed but not scheduled for an appeals approve and also after. the amendments i'm oeflg is the hearing be set no more than 45 days. the third process has to be the legal standard refers to substance evidence. i think state law is clear we need a standard which is in 3 parts section 3116 and section subsection d 5. the amendments addresses the importance of making sure that we have full notice of over-the-counter permits. i've added a new section 5 that says this ordinance will not become operate i have or until the the department has updated at any time website
to thank you for trying to improve our sequa policies and procedures. however, i'd like to make a comment in regards to this process. as we all know this process didn't start with supervisor wiener. it has going on for 7 or 8 years. at this point seems like a long marathon of 8 years and now it seems like people want to do the sprint to the finish line. enough time has been spent but we have to be diligent. we need to explore all avenues and autopsy optioned and unfortunately, if we sprint to the end we'll not have the opportunity to see supervisors kim legislation and supervisor wiener's legislation side by side. we need adequate time. we need at least until the end of may for the process to be completed. so, please do not short circuit this process. one of the things that are important that was mentioned earlier is the powers of the e r o. it maybe truthful but we need clear guidelines and we need an appeal process. so thank you supervisor kim for having that. this is not a sprint we need the time we need to have optioned. thank you >> thank you. >> supervisors we're on record as supp
hope the political insiders who use sequa to yield power over their communities that sequa won't derail this project. please remind us in those debates we don't have the power but we look to you for the power to help things stay balanced. thank you >> thank you very much. next speaker >> supervisors david. the rooms tenants association we support supervisor kim's legislation. we support it among other reasons because it's superior noting requirement. and show more respect for historic buildings. we were blind sited by the installation of two humanely signs on the post office recently. this is a gem of a building and was designed by the architect of the hotel. those signs demonstrate the clear need to strengthen the planning process and improve noting and respect historic buildings. we live across the street are from the long shore building where the developer wanted to destroy. i understood a planning commissioner said he would have voted against the building if he'd known the history. we need adequate noting of the show stopping information that's known throughout the planning proces
rolls rules for projects and for mitigating the process is important. the sequa process impacts residents who are both neighbors of projects and it has to be fair to both currently it's not fair to either. i think supervisors chu's ideas but we hope in the next couple of weeks it benefits all the residents of the city >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> i just wanted to i'm not going to reap the previous speakers who have spoken. but i want to voice my southern this not be rushed through without having supervisors kim's amendment if you want to get this right slow down. let it work through the process. i haven't really taken the time to look and read supervisor chu's amendment but i did kind of like what was saying. i can't say if i fully support those amendments. it's also good to see supervisor campos wisdom on those matters >> thank you. next speaker >> gadget. we're on record supporting supervisor wiener's proposal. we had a quick look at president chu's remarks we realso support the majority the only one we want to look at is the putting all the deals to the full
the the department has updated at any time website to provide an up to date information about the sequa organization and it holds a public hearing. the fifth set of amendments has to be with documentation as part of the appeals. i think we should keep it status go so that the appellant is not required to submit all where i live materials at the time the appeal is filed. the next is in addition to the type of notice that would be required by the online system there is new language for each project and to provide that information to the public in information on a website or a sequa decision. the effect would be not only to have planning effective planning to post information about every exemption that's not publically noticed. there's imply language that the type of project modification could occur if it needs additional review. a 7th he set of realize would allow the revised ordinance that i will be asking to be loud. but open up the thirty days appeals window after the approval. an 8th set of rules would be after sequa determinations. so what happens open a first approval if you have modifications.
and not comment on a eir after not commenting. i think this allows people to be productive in the sequa process at the beginning. so those are my thoughts and comments on supervisor kim's legislation and with that i'll turn it over >> can i respond to - >> sure. >> i've heard this a couple of times our election allows two appeals that's not true you are loud one appeal. now if that's legislation is changed then, yes then you can have more than one appeal. that's important to also lay out. in the planning commission would have to approve all the determinations and that's not true the puc still issued the planning permits. now if they have issues they can turn it back to the puc but they don't have to approve every declaration. for the negative declaration our - the thirty day appeal window begins at the beginning the appeal process. and the last piece on the mta we had asked planning for the universe that the puc gives but we simply were not able to get that information prior to drafting this so without having an understanding of a database it's hard for us to determine how best to make the r
into construction and there's a permit that is pulled in the middle it could be enclosing to sequa? and if you have that kind of appeal filed my understanding is construction would have to halt until the sequa is appealed >> yes, this is my understanding. >> because if there's a sequa document is challenged additional changes will have to be made. >> i was going to ask the city attorney. >> that's a strange writing. the ordinance the supervisor kim's ordinance provides in section 31.1 that a negative declaration be filed anytime it's issued by the planning department and no longer than the 30 days avenue it's adopted after the city approves the promise >> let's say if the park project in the case of a categorical exception? >> it's anything up so long as there is still a discretionary approval action. so it would be the final discretionary principle of law >> so if you have a park renovation so the two categorical exemption the deadline to appeal would be the final discretionary act? >> so long as it's thirty days. >> that could be within the thirty days? >> it still has to be a discretio
at supervisor kim's ordnance as well as supervisor wiener's. i have an overhead here of park merced. per sequa guidelines public agencies must carefully consider any potentially feasible alter that may minimize a significant environmental impact. and this is sequa 5.1626 it must contain a thorough decisions that do not included that dpoogs. the bulldozer are torn down adjacent to a large community and the loss of an open is that a that was part of the hearing where the public lost and the individual tenants went from 1 thousand square feet to 1 hundred square feet and none of this was addressed. it was raised but the public agencies in charge doesn't due their diligent duty and that's why we're here today. we must have adequate comment in the process >> thank you, mr. wood. >> thank you very much i'm george coalition for san francisco neighborhood. a couple of thoughts. i think the best way to look at this sequa legislation it's not my legislation or your legislation i've heard that a couple of times today. i think we should look at the best for all are i want to thank president chiu. i thin
this project with when i ran into a port office on the street. the sequa process needs to be strengthened not weakened. >> thank you very much. >> howard paul speaking for 70 tomorrow. the sequa and as i participated in many projects. month projects as you know are not stag in another they evolve. and with some great minds as the 4 of you i think we can come to a progress that will be fair to all public. the public participation part of this is very important to s f p t. at one time financial interests had much more somewhat then many, many things in this city including from small to large projects. the kim legislation we have worked with and have found to be evolving but does have some argument that we like more than the other legislation. fully assessable to the general public and particularly to the average citizen and disadvantaged community. sequa is only one part of the community i would urge the board to look at all the elements and make them clear not just sequa but zoning and many issues have come to it. >> thank you very much. >> i'm i'm with the san francisco preservation a
sequa because a few people's abused it? i support supervisor kim's legislation it codifies the process but also facing more weight on community input. so i think we need to slow down. make sure we have the right legislation and quote supervisor wiener you said there's no rush we need to do that right. and again, the community notification is important so i think we should consider supervisors kimgz legislation and the amendments that were directed by david chiu >> next speaker. >> good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. aim pastor gavn. i'm here because the passion the 41 groups have shown in regards to the sequa. in coming here today on earth day when i first became aware of it was recycle, reduce and reuse. but, you know, and i thought about what was happening how we only had one option i thought of you and i thought about the district you represent and i thought how can it be we only have one proposal. and here now we have two and i think that's phenomenal because you believe in a democratic system. i think we have an important choice. i used to here not being a native of california
the passion the 41 groups have shown in regards to the sequa. in coming here today on earth day when i first became aware of it was recycle, reduce and reuse. but, you know, and i thought about what was happening how we only had one option i thought of you and i thought about the district you represent and i thought how can it be we only have one proposal. and here now we have two and i think that's phenomenal because you believe in a democratic system. i think we have an important choice. i used to here not being a native of california but this is such a piece of important legislation that will come before the board how about as san francisco goes so goes the nation. how often taking the proper time to vet something will be having a huge implication on all san franciscans. so i think we need to take the time to do this right this is a very important piece of legislation and it will translate into both for future elections for both of you. i hope you do the right thing and let's get this right this time around now that we have more than one option >> i do have one more card. >> hello presi
we're looking at diversify notification. we would like to see that done. i'm not against this sequa or - but the thing about what we're looking at - >> thank you very much. mr. cowen. >> good afternoon peter cohen. you know that affordable housing covers a lot of rage we have affordable developers who are doing the process and the bureaucracy like a marketing developer. and so the process side of environmental review and the system is also something by the respect terrifically. as you move into the web enter face there's some folks who engage better through methods of traditional paper notification. so it's important we try to insure both of those methods. we had a chance to have supervisor wiener office and supervisor kim's office and we hope that a couple items are obviously very quick and line up well. we also had a particular required amendment. we've actually written that up and submit that and would ask that you consider that as an amendment as this goes forward in the process. of course, there's an implementation questions. on that note we notice that one ordinance is goin
process outlined by sequa instead of a top down approach and approved by the planning department it requires the condemnation from neighborhood associations. i could see the freedom west will involve a series of hearings and i hope your platoons will be unanimously heard and approvedly agencies. it would allow environmental organizations and the business community and the housing activists and instead of negotiating the projects in order to create a plan that all parties could stand behind. a community used the process early. and with something so large and complicated as at the development of freedom west there will be new and excepted modifications. while i want to be a developer that my community would accept. the kim amendment is a necessary and a balance approach on city planning and development. the current legislation >> thank you. thank you. thank you, mr. c. >> good afternoon i live in district 6. i look back and i didn't really pay attention to this issue when it first started 10 years ago because i didn't come to city hall because the prior commissioners i - i try to
sequa. so we can't bring to you a set of without first analyzing the improvements. any improvements we have should be consistent with the public tries doctrine the 10 year capital plan and that's making sure we're proposing policy that's been adopt. next, we suggest that those are major master plans redevelopment areas in many respects and there ought to be a burden on the city to show there's a economical he - and we should demonstrate where we collect property taxes we need to be able to assure that the cost is covered by other taxes or you at least know what the financial trade offices are when your foreman a district. in those areas where we're able to capture the state share of property tax we would suggest the way that the states structured that ability was to say the states share could be made available in proportion to how much the increment we dedicated locally. we want to any other time the local distribution. number 7 on this slide is the key of what we sort of the heart of the policy. we're using tax increments to essentially purchase infrastructure that is built by our par
needs to be a priority right now. i think that with respect to the procedures around sequa that there is agreement that there has to be more clarity and there has to be more certainty. the problem that i have with the over all approach and that is my own personal view in terms of how i see the vision or the proposal that has been presented by supervisor weiner is that i think that if the proposal goes forward you are going to have a situation that could lead to less community input, less community involvement with respect to a number of projects and i actually think that that is something that ultimately hurts not only the community but actually hurts the city as a whole. there are many examples of cases where sequa and the procedures around that have been abused and many examples where those procedures and the way that they are implemented have actually benefited the community. the question is, striking that right balance. but, in terms of whether we are as a city, let me just say this, that what i see in my district, and especially in a neighborhood like the mission, when
to talk about sequa reform and talk about the appeal process. but i will tell you what people do stop me on the street and the grocery store and elsewhere to talk about, is a deep, deep, frustration about how community benefiting projects, parks, libraries, bike improvement, pedestrian safety improvement, affordable housing. a deep frustration about how incredibly long and how expensive it is to get these communities benefiting projects done. it is the people are deeply frustrated. what they do stop me about is why isn't my park getting fixed up so quickly, i voted for a bond, years and years ago and it is still not being improved. why is my library in north beach, why did it take so long for that project to get under way? why don't i have bike safety improvements yet? why did that take so long? it is not about sequa specifically, it is about the process that we have in place to make posive changes in our community and that is what the people are frustrated about and what people stop me and i am sure all of us about in terms of that frustration. so let's not pretend that this is just abo
that take so long? it is not about sequa specifically, it is about the process that we have in place to make posive changes in our community and that is what the people are frustrated about and what people stop me and i am sure all of us about in terms of that frustration. so let's not pretend that this is just about sequa. it is a process that we have that we have in place around projects that have potentially huge benefit for neighborhoods and for our city and i don't think that it is accurate to just refer to it as ceqa, as opposed to ceqa that effects all of these important things that people care about. >> i agree with supervisor kim that it is not about making the life easier for the planning department or reducing the work load. of course the staff has to do the work that they need to do and they have the staffing to do whatever work is appropriate. it is about coming up with a process that works for our community. and i happen to believe that you know allowing appeals of categorical exceptions, potentially, multicodes, where we need to have better and more comprehensive noticing. and
? >> is there a motion to approve this? i move to approve that change to the sequa regulation. >> second. >> all in favor? okay. the motion passes. another computer issue we're going to be discussing and on net files contracts the renewal of that >> so the commission has a contract with net file which is our electronic filing vendor and that contract will end in september of this year. the contracting process in this city is very length yes and requires approval by the civil serve commission. it is - the commission has previously entered into two contracts to provide the system for finance statements lobbyist statements and statements of economical interests. it's the only vendor that the state has approved so we only have one system and the system is shared by 20 industries that lowered our maintenance costs and allowed us to improve the system. there are a brief memo and i'll answer any questions about it. m >> this memo represents a lot of time we spent on that. we do get some benefits and we think about that carefully as we plan ahead so the negotiations are crafted very careful. the city
. that developer will be responsible for the sequa process with the city. so that developer would come to this body to request approval for any development of that site. thankful not been able to rely on the universities zoning. we've been in the process with the developer. san francisco general we don't own as you know. we have a significant presence both in terms of our clinic staff anticipate teach students and trainees. many of our studies are in compromiseable buildings. but those brick building do not comply with the building sowed. so we're going to look at vacating those brick buildings and constructing a new building on the parking lot adjacent to the current hospital that will accommodate your offices from the other brick buildings. as well as some off campus leases. we have gone discussions with our staff and as well as the department of public health. we're industrial trying to figure out how at all the building is going to be. we need to come up with a solution with the parking that will be displaced as well as a mechanism foresight control. so this is the bigger picture of facts. so w
. anything else? >> is there a motion to approve this? i move to approve that change to the sequa
Search Results 0 to 43 of about 44 (some duplicates have been removed)